Michelle Obama Brings the Healing

Clinton’s best character witness explains why she’s the person to succeed her husband, and quiets even furious Sanders supporters.

July 26, 2016

First lady Michelle Obama arrives to address the crowd at the Wells Fargo Center in Philadelphia on the first day of the Democratic National Convention. (AP Photo / Tom Williams)

Ready to fight back?

Sign up for Take Action Now and we’ll send you three meaningful actions every Tuesday.

Thank you for signing up. For more from The Nation, check out our latest issue.

Subscribe now for as little as $2 a month!

Support Progressive Journalism

The Nation is reader supported: Chip in $10 or more to help us continue to write about the issues that matter.

Fight Back!

Sign up for Take Action Now and we’ll send you three meaningful actions you can each week.

Travel With The Nation

Be the first to hear about Nation Travels destinations, and explore the world with kindred spirits.

Sign up for our Wine Club today.

Did you know you can support The Nation by drinking wine?

Philadelphia—Claims to making history collided in 2008, when Hillary Clinton lost the Democratic presidential nomination to Barack Obama. The potential first woman came up short against the first African American–who ultimately became our first black president. There was an enervating tension at that Denver convention eight years ago, a hangover from a long and often bitter campaign–until the Democratic women’s advocacy group Emily’s List brought Clinton and Michelle Obama together for a celebration.

They celebrated each other. “Over her career she has offered me, my daughters, and all of our daughters a different vision for what they could become and for that we are forever grateful for her work,” Obama said of Clinton, though she had at times been furious at the campaign’s racially tinged maneuvers. Clinton confided: “I know a little bit about how the White House works. If the president is not exactly on our side, call the first lady. And with Michelle Obama, we’re going to have someone to answer that phone.”

Eight years later here in Philadelphia, Democrats needed healing again, and Michelle Obama brought it. Quieting angry Bernie Sanders supporters (who had even booed Representative Elijah Cummings when he talked about his late father), Obama delivered an eyes-wide-open tribute to this country’s still unfinished evolution toward equality. “I wake up every morning in a house that was built by slaves and I watch my daughters—two beautiful, intelligent, black young women—playing with their dogs on the White House lawn.”

Obama also gave unhappy Sanders supporters gracious advice about how to carry on in defeat. “When she didn’t win the nomination eight years ago, she didn’t get angry, or disillusioned. Hillary did not pack up and go home. Because as a true public servant, Hillary knows this is so much bigger than her desires or disappointments.” Amazingly, she echoed Clinton’s own concession speech, delivered to bitter, grieving supporters eight years ago, praising her as someone “who has the guts and the grace to keep coming back and putting those cracks in that highest and hardest glass ceiling.”

LIKE THIS? GET MORE OF OUR BEST REPORTING AND ANALYSIS

Thinking about the way these two women, once at odds, became friends and supporters made me feel better about what has so far been a divided and sometimes disappointing convention. At a reception honoring women leaders, sponsored by the Center for American Progress and Elle magazine, elation over Clinton’s impending nomination fought with anxiety over the potential for disruption by restive Sanders backers, despite the heroic work Sanders himself is putting in to try to stop it. “Why can’t she just have this moment?” a longtime Clinton supporter asked, near tears. As we left the reception to head to the convention arena, a monsoon of biblical enormity seemed to represent a cloudburst of hundreds of women’s frustration.

Obama reminded all of us to get over ourselves. “There were plenty of moments when Hillary could have decided this work was too hard. She never takes the easy way out. And Hillary Clinton has never quit on anything in her life. When I think about the kind of president that I want for my girls, that’s what I want. And that’s why in this election, I’m with her!”

It’s going to be a week of testimony to Clinton’s political character, but she may have no better character witness than Michelle Obama.

Joan WalshTwitterJoan Walsh, The Nation’s national-affairs correspondent, is the author of What’s the Matter With White People? Finding Our Way in the Next America.

A typical crock from the shameless pundit of sexism and distortion, whose complete bias and inability to comprehend anything deeper than surface level media and TV illusions, render her articles not worthy of publication. And yet THE NATION keeps pumping them out. The absurd Kabuki theater that passes for reality in current US politics, leads to articles like this. The staged fantasy is presented as truth because of the unscrupulous manipulation of the DNC in cooperation with mass media, with all the smoke and mirrors, that make it hard to tell what's true on the TV screen.﻿ So Joan, here's a little reality check for you. 824 Official State Volunteers for Bernie, were denied access to the convention, had their credentials confiscated and suffered repeated verbal abuse from Hillary supporters. Inside the convention, signs were confiscated and people were removed. White noise amplifiers were placed above Bernie supporter sections, to cancel out their voices When a large portion of Bernie supporters walked out in protest over these events and the multitude of abuses hurled their way, the Democratic elites filled their seats with paid bodies ($50) a head and local uncredentialed Hillary supporters. Check out this article and Eden MacFadden's video with almost 2 million views http://www.commondreams.org/views/2016/07/30/while-publicly-seeking-unity-dnc-censoring-convention-and-silencing-dissent.
Shall we cry for the poor woman who traveled all the way to Philadelphia to participate in the Democratic process and was denied rightful access or is that only reserved for wealthy, connected Hillary supporters who attend a﻿ "reception honoring women leaders, sponsored by the Center for American Progress and Elle magazine'" whose perfect little party was ruined by the unappreciative, unconnected rabble (who invited these people to Hillary's coatilion, anyway?) So, what we actually witnessed on TV, was a well choreographed, well edited piece of fiction. It was filled with heroic emotional highs (Michele Obama, Khizr Khan) and disturbing lows (all on the part of Bernies' ridiculous children, who just can't grow up) and even featured actors who were PAID to wear Hillary paraphernalia, hold Hillary signs and chant her name (On a lighter note, they should have edited Joe Biden's somewhat deranged speech in which he angrily yelled at ? and looked like he would bite the head off a chicken at any moment). All this wonderful film-making allowed the coronation to take place, without too much messy interference from reality (And the balloons - oh the glorious balloons, they fell like deformed cherry blossoms from the Tree of Life...)

The one, very bright spot in all this, is that the young adult population seems to be better informed and more highly socially and politically motivated than any generation I've witnessed, including the 60's Baby Boomers. They seem to have an uncanny knack, in a world of illusion and propaganda, to look at, smell and recognize a smoldering pile when they see one.

So... unlike the Democratic party narrative for Bernie supporters - vote for Hillary or be a spoiled brat and stay home - be a modern American hero (both genders) and vote your conscience, Vote for Jill Stein. Listen to what Jill Stein has to say, She's Bernie with a better foreign policy. She's honest, straight forward and not bought out. She never gets coverage and she is marginalized by the same forces that tried to silence and are now co-opting and marginalizing Bernie's message (have you noticed how, all of a sudden, ALL the Democrats are "progressives", even those who voted for the "Dark Act"?). If fear of Trump, is still your main motivator and the race is close, vote for Hillary, but with the resolve to continue the revolution and the understanding that you're picking your opponent. If you're in a Blue State that Hillary will easily win or a Red State she can't win, vote for Jill Stein so the Green Party can receive public funding and to start to build an alternative (so in 2, 4,6,8... years from now, were not faced with the same dead-end choices). You can still support and work with Bernie in his attempts from inside.

(0)(0)

Carolyn Mae Robesays:

July 27, 2016 at 12:34 pm

Trump is kind of a fan of Putin and Kim Jong Un? Is Putin hoping for Trump? He would prefer Trump to Clinton I think. But Trump is a wild card, more unpredictable than Clinton. Who would thrive best with someone like Trump? Someone who would like to see chaos and uncertain times in the USA.

(1)(0)

Walter Pewensays:

July 26, 2016 at 7:34 pm

Endless movement, constant movement, toward Hillary as as our savior. What was Michelle Obama's moment becomes Hillary's moment--because Joan Walsh has come here to tell us it's true. I am a 58 white gay man, and I do not give a damn what gender we elect. Joan really does, really does, really does......

(12)(3)

Doris Spinillosays:

July 28, 2016 at 5:30 pm

Which, by the way, makes Joan a sexist. I'm a 66 year old white straight women. I would never cast a vote for Hillary just because she is a women. I won't vote for her (life-long democrat) because no change will ever happen for 'we the people' if we keep feeding the dragon. This is only enabling and insanity. If we want real change, the change we the people need, we must not vote for anyone that will not address the needs of all Americans over the corporate state we live in and always have, no doubt. I have never 'not voted' in any election. I just had no idea that I was wrong in voting for democrats. I would never vote for Republicans either. This time I will vote for Jill Stein if she is on my ballot in IL. If not, I will not vote at all. I will do what I can for a real revolution to happen. I will never vote again if there isn't a third party that I agree with. I will never vote again for another corporate democrat. I will also never allow anyone to bully we into a 'fear' vote only.

(7)(3)

Walter Pewensays:

July 26, 2016 at 1:48 pm

Endless selling of Hillary by Joan Walsh, the minute she arrived at The Nation. It will never end. Of course, many of us knew the minute Michelle stepped into the White House what a wonderful, competent human being we had. It's nice that Joan reinforces it, but please STFU about Hillary-it's just not welcome here. Go back a shill at Salon, for Christ's sake. It's a done deal. I voted for Sanders and will vote for Clinton. Walsh is now bad karma.

(13)(11)

Ben Kasparsays:

July 26, 2016 at 2:10 pm

Get ahold of yourself. This kind of attitude is killing journalism. Do you want the Nation to become a one sided digital birdcage liner like the Brietbart report?

(5)(11)

Francis Louis Szotsays:

July 26, 2016 at 7:09 pm

I don't read the Brietbart report. I'll make the easy assumption that it's as full of half-truths and full blown lies as FOX. That said, your comment demonstrates that You believe the CONTENT of the Breitbart report vs. The Nation is approximately equivalent regarding veracity, intelligence, and promoting good governance.

If you think that the ONLY notable difference between that far-right klan report is a single-minded devotion to a particular segment of the political spectrum, you are without discernment and your opinion is worthless.

The crap coming out of the right-wing crayon scribblers is NOT equivalent to the legitimate journalism that (almost always) defines The Nation.

(Joan Walsh is a great example why I have to make the "almost always" disclaimer.)

(6)(5)

Walter Pewensays:

July 26, 2016 at 4:35 pm

No, but I don't want Joan's parochial school bat over the head. Capiche?

(5)(2)

Charlotte Ritchiesays:

July 26, 2016 at 12:51 pm

Michelle Obama is without equal in her grace, passion and charisma. I could feel her fear for the future of her girls, and our country, in the hands of a Trump presidency. Oh how I will miss the Obamas and their quiet dignity, their equanimity.

Thank you Joan Walsh, for referring to Senator Sanders as "heroic," although you credit him only for trying to tamp down the passion - but you call it "potential for disruption" - of his supporters. You ask, for all of those women, "why can't she just have this moment?" Do you not realize how painful, even horrifying, as a Sanders supporter, it has been to witness those leaked emails, and to have it confirmed, once and for all, that the primary was indeed totally rigged in her favor? And, to top it off, Debbie Wasserman Schultz leaves her post at the DNC, in disgrace, and Hillary offers her a cushy job at the top of her campaign? This tells us that Hillary knew all about the favoritism and rewarded DWS because she took the fall. Oh, the vile stench of corruption.

Hillary Clinton is no Michelle Obama. Can people even begin to imagine what it would be like to have the Clintons and their superstar friends back in the White House, with a restive Bill Clinton wandering around like an irascible old ghost?

I don't want Trump any more than any sane person would. The problem is that Hillary cannot win against him. She has already fallen behind him in the polls. She has a cloud of corruption swirling around her at all times, and most of it is self-induced. Julian Assange has promised even more damaging leaks. The Trump campaign will have more opposition research than we can even imagine. Just wait.

(16)(15)

Ben Kasparsays:

July 26, 2016 at 12:23 pm

A powerful intellect that somehow never sounds pedantic. She really has the touch in a way that Gore, HRC, and even Obama can't match. Sanders was great as well. On the other hand, the booing of ﻿Elijah Cummings was a deeply shameful moment that spoke volumes and will not be soon forgotten.

(14)(5)

Francis Louis Szotsays:

July 26, 2016 at 7:15 pm

Yeah. Elijah Cummings; the guy who has been in Congress for like what? Thirty years?

And when asked about Sanders record on civil rights, he gets on national TeeVee and say, I paraphrase; "I don't even know who that Birdie Sanders fellow is. I never seen him involved."

Effing lie. Remember that too.

(7)(0)

Doris Spinillosays:

July 28, 2016 at 5:40 pm

Francis, thank you for the truth. I really appreciated your other post as well.

(2)(0)

Francis Louis Szotsays:

July 29, 2016 at 3:31 pm

Thank you. I vent, therefore I am. ;-)
( . . . not really. As a philosopher, Descartes got it ALL wrong. )

(1)(1)

Kathleen Freemansays:

July 26, 2016 at 11:44 am

Michelle makes the effort for healing while Hillary inflicts more wounds: Hillary actually praised Wasserman Schultz and gave her a top campaign position after Wasserman Schultz resigned from the DNC. Hillary said about the upcoming campaign, “I will need fighters like Debbie.” This was the last straw for me, Mrs. Clinton.

Monday’s Convention bent over backwards to tout Clinton and party unity when, on the very day before, Clinton exalted the corrupt Wasserman Schultz – virtually a slap in the face to Sanders and sidestepping the possibility of her having illegitimately won the primary season. Sanders took the “high road” at the Convention that Michelle Obama spoke of while Hillary slunk in her own muck.

I will not even consider voting for Clinton unless she states publically that Wasserman Schultz patently violated the charter of the DNC and fires her. Hilary’s debacle makes me wonder what rewards she promised to corrupt Wall Street donors in the speech she gave them and won’t release the transcript of.

Good luck with Hillary, Democrats!

(25)(12)

Doris Spinillosays:

July 28, 2016 at 5:47 pm

Wow, thank you Kathleen. You were able to say what I would never have been able to write as well as you did. However, I don't wish the Democrats any luck with Hillary. I really want Jill Stein on the debate stage against Drump and Hillary. I think she has to get to 15% in the polls, right? If she is included in the debates, that will help keep Americans informed of the 'revolution' issues for 'we the people'. Who the heck wants a female president if she isn't for US. HIllary is only for the corporate state. Jill Stein is a female that is for US and our planet.

(4)(0)

Sam Pizzosays:

July 26, 2016 at 12:54 pm

she was given a "honorary position"....no responsibilities...you have a very narrow view , no context

(4)(11)

Francis Louis Szotsays:

July 26, 2016 at 2:07 pm

First of all, it's a big middle finger to progressives, REAL progressives, that Debbie Wasser-Shultz was given any "honor" at all.

Secondly, You THINK you know that Wassergirl-Schitz will have a strictly cosmetic role because . . . some Clinton spokesperson TOLD that to someone like Joan Walsh, or some other of her flunkys in the press.

Schultz will be funneling money to HRC until she runs out of favors to sell.

Watch . . . if "Cheating Debbie" loses her congressional primary, and HRC wins (god forbid), she might be made an ambassador, or appointed to some executive office position. Clinton does reward her dobermans.

(8)(4)

Kathleen Freemansays:

July 26, 2016 at 1:55 pm

Correction taken, but even an "honorary" designation was bad judgement and divisive on Hillary's part. However, the more insidious issue is how Clinton evaded questions from 60 Minutes about whether or not she knew about the emails. She appeared to be covering up having known. Also, if Hillary had called out Wasserman Schultz for a blantant violation of the DNC charter as Sanders did, she would have risked Wasserman Schultz exposing Hillary's participation in it, if indeed she had. The episode is pertinent and relevant about her character, happening in the real time of the Convention.

(10)(3)

Ben Kasparsays:

July 26, 2016 at 2:33 pm

I think the email stuff was fairly standard DNC chatter Trumped up into a big controversy by the Russians--who are playing Julian Assange and the Bernie or Bust crowd like a Stradivarius. In that sense, its almost a principled stand--to not give in to demands that were triggered by the manipulations of foreign intelligence services. At the very least, its more complicated than "Hillary slunk into her her own muck."

(3)(13)

Karin Eckvallsays:

July 26, 2016 at 3:19 pm

Wow, that's nuts. For your sake, I really hope you're kidding.

(7)(3)

Ben Kasparsays:

July 26, 2016 at 6:01 pm

Not kidding. All evidence at this point suggests it was the Russian intelligence services that hacked the DNC accounts. Which means these intelligence services controlled the information that was released to Wikileaks and ultimately to the press. Thus, the narrative we have seen could represent the truth or it could represent a story--built through clever omission and selective distribution--to reinforce an existing belief. Misdirection in the guise of transparency seems to be the new thing. I'm not defending Shultz or the DNC in any way. Just pointing out that all evidence suggests this was a direct attempt by a foreign country to influence the voting habits of US citizens.

(2)(5)

James Duselsays:

July 29, 2016 at 10:40 am

As I said before: Seems like some people don't like transparency that is seized from rather than bestowed by those who wield power. Here's a relevant quote from a former Supreme Court justice:

Publicity is justly commended as a remedy for social . . . diseases. Sunlight is said to be the best of disinfectants. - Louis Brandeis

I might add that Justice Brandeis is not the sort of guy whom HRC is likely to propose to the bench.

Russians???? Give us a break! That's official DNC propaganda; a red herring, so to speak, designed to distract the credulous from the scandalous behavior of the DNC. We all know Obama & Company hate whistleblowers. Manning, Snowden and others, who suffer either incarceration or exile, have more patriotism in their little fingers than HRC has sycophants.

(2)(0)

Francis Louis Szotsays:

July 26, 2016 at 7:21 pm

WHAT "EVIDENCE"??

Do you even know what would constitute REAL evidence in such matters? I have worked for over a decade as a computer systems administrator at major USA Universities, and I'm not aware of ANYTHING the talking heads might have said that comes REMOTELY close to "evidence".

You are speaking out of your ass.

(5)(1)

Charlotte Ritchiesays:

July 26, 2016 at 7:06 pm

Who cares? US citizens should know about chicanery at the highest levels. It's pathetic, in our propagandized plutocracy, that we can only obtain such information though whistleblowers who rely on hackers.

(7)(0)

Doris Spinillosays:

July 28, 2016 at 5:54 pm

Amen, and the whistle-blowers risked their lives to let the American people know via their leaks. Their lives have been ruined. They should be heros, not criminals.

(3)(0)

Karin Eckvallsays:

July 26, 2016 at 6:33 pm

You did more than that, you dismissed the memos as trivial, claimed that Hillary took the high road by not condemning DWS et. al. (what difference does it make who leaked the memos as to the ethics of the DNC)...and you accused people who view those memos as problematic (they were trying to use Sanders' religious beliefs against him, for god's sake) of being dupes and idiots.
All information is that the Russians COULD HAVE done that hacking; no information says they did.

As Snowden says, the NSA knows for sure and should release that info one way or the other.

(6)(0)

Ben Kasparsays:

July 26, 2016 at 7:31 pm

I stand by everything I wrote and would add that the metadata associated with the leaked emails also suggests that Russia was involved.

(2)(5)

Francis Louis Szotsays:

July 27, 2016 at 2:16 pm

. . . while the SOURCE of the leaks, Wikileaks, states that there is no Russian involvement.

There will not be a definitive answer to all of the possible methods and origins of the leaks. If they are sophisticated enough, false "leads" may be left behind by the actual perpetrators in order to deliberately implicate some other "usual suspect".

Bottom line, there is no way to know, beyond a reasonable doubt, that it couldn't have been our own NSA who let the truth out of the black bag.

You will be told what you are expected to believe by the USA media, our politicians, and implicated institutions, but it will remain like a "who killed Kennedy" question. We will never know.

(4)(0)

Francis Louis Szotsays:

July 29, 2016 at 3:56 pm

. . . and I luv you too, Doris.

(1)(0)

Doris Spinillosays:

July 28, 2016 at 5:56 pm

You are so right on. I can't disagree with a single word of the posts you've entered at this site.

(2)(0)

Karin Eckvallsays:

July 26, 2016 at 11:37 am

Vote for Hillary. She a woman and a HARD worker who never gives up.

(8)(21)

James Duselsays:

July 29, 2016 at 8:12 pm

Surely you are making a poor attempt at irony?

(0)(0)

Doris Spinillosays:

July 28, 2016 at 5:59 pm

Your comments are sexist. She never gives up on pleasing the corporate state, so she has many big paydays awaiting her. She works hard for Hillary only is my belief.

(0)(1)

Francis Louis Szotsays:

July 26, 2016 at 1:50 pm

Hillary is a female, and she never gives up; that amounts to the maximum recommendation that can possibly be made at this point because everyone knows that she cannot be believed to be faithful to ANY item that has been wedged into the party platform. The same praise would look as good on the resume of any donkey that was worth its oats too. Talk about damning with faint praise.

(9)(5)

Francis Louis Szotsays:

July 29, 2016 at 3:53 pm

On second thought . . . she NEVER gives up?

The myth of Sisyphus is designed to warn us that being compelled without end to push the same rock up the same hill, which can NEVER be accomplished, is an enervating punishment, and not a reliable indication of superior moral character.

That was the punishment that the king of Ephyra (now known as Corinth) suffered for his self-aggrandizing craftiness and deceitfulness, according to Wikipedia.

Remember also the adage, "Discretion is the better part of valor"? Remember Killery's gung-ho for bombing Libya? Remember her unending cheerleading for 15 years of war in and around Iraq? Remember HRC's continued and secretive obeisance to Wall Street?